Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.atheism > #2171298

Re: Atheism is Witchcraft

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Followups directed to: alt.idiots

Show all headers | View raw

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 20.09.2016 03:02, schrieb Bob Officer:
>> Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>  wrote:
>>> Am 19.09.2016 06:53, schrieb Attila<:
>> 

Note: follow-ups set to proper group.
>>>>>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the
>>>>> suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).
>>>>> 
>>>>> But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is
>>>>> what we can see from our position here on Earth.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.
>>>>> 
>>>>> E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite
>>>>> direction, where our future is there the past.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone
>>>>> from there could not see us.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a
>>>>> universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards
>>>>> our axis of time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would also be invisible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic
>>>>> hand of a gigantic clock.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe
>>>>> out of nowhere, in a big bang.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and
>>>>> kind of fold back into itself.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs
>>>>> into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).
>>>>> 
>>>>> And we are in the centre of it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet
>>>>> a different universe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> TH
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of
>>>> fiction.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but assumptions are a central part of what is called 'scientific
>>> method'.
>>> 
>>> Goes roughly like this:
>>> 
>>> You make up your mind and try to find something, that fits to
>>> observations. Now everybody is invited to defeat this assumptions and
>>> the hypothesis that survives is promoted to 'theory'.
>> 
>> Actually you've hard the process explained to you many times with enough
>> citations and references some in your own native language. You were wrong
>> then and then wrong now.
>> 
>> The observation takes place 1st then speculation above how what you
>> observed happened, then from that speculation a hypothesis can be formed.
>> Then after testing, you may have to revise your hypothesis and retest.
>> Eventually you might come up with a theory.
>> 
>> Observation comes 1st.
> 
> This depends a little on what kind of field you try to cover.

Wrong. Oh ignorant one.

> Theoretical physics on a fundamental level is about things, that cannot 
> be observed directly.

And indirect observation is still an observation.

> You cannot observe things, that are far too small for any known 
> instrument. So we have to speculate in this realm and can only use 
> imagination and the findings on scales, where things are somehow observable.

nope.

> If you now try to bring these entities on different scales into one 
> single and logical framework, you actually need to guess.

Nope.

> Most of these guesses lead to nothing, so you have to repeat the 
> process, until you find something fitting.

Still wrong

> My own method was to search for similarities between Relativity and 
> Quantum mechanics, while I started at the GR side.

Your method is called pseudo science, Thomas. And that has fully explained
to you elsewhere.

> So I tried to find ways, to build particles out of spacetime.

Nonsense, Thomas, you write fiction. Nothing more than fiction and you've
convinced yourself this fiction is somehow science.

> My approach is called 'structured spacetime' and based on a certain type 
> of quaternions.

Nonsense you made up. It is called fiction Thomas.

> This method seems fitting and is now my assumption (guess, hypothesis).

Ridiculous and baseless speculation, Thomas.
 
> This I have written down, made quotes and nice illustrations and made it 
> publicly available.

That work doesn't mean there is one iota of fact, any more that a series of
books were written about a boy flying on a broom and several movies were
made make the story true. fiction is imaginary and like your book not based
in reality.

> So far my work is done and I can wait for replies.

You had. One months ago and I detailed the actually errors on the 1st dozen
pages. It is garbage.
You wasted your time and effort in the useless exercise of mental self
gratification.

> 
>> IIRC Your so called expertise was in engineering. Not physics? Certainly
>> not higher mathematics.
> 
> Actually I was quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.

I was paid to use mathematics professionally, real life applications. It is
called engineering. You tripe is a failed exercise of mental self
gratification.

>>> Since this is actually a scientific group about relativity
>>> (sci.physics.relativity), you should not be surprised, if someone refers
>>> to General Relativity (as I did).
>>> 
>>> But if you like, you can try to disprove, what I have written.
>>> 
>> 
>> Already done... now go away. You spent far too much money on art work and
>> not math.
> 
> Something I have little is actually money. So the 'book' is mainly a 'no 
> budget project'.

Did you dump you wastrel hanger-on. Your the only person I know of that
actually failed at owning and operating a drinking establishment because
your lover was giving his other boyfriend free drinks and taking money from
the till.
> 
> Math of the required type is difficult. But fortunately other authors 
> have written about complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra.

And failed completely. You do understand why four vector math was
developed, and why Pauli went to effort to write that matrix.

You do understand your work would be scoff t by Pauli and his contemporary
as nothing by idiocy.


>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can
>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That
>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>> 
>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
>> debunk it.
>> 
> 
> Then feel free to do that.

Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running away,
just like you will t
Leave these groups.



-- 
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. 
 John Cleese on Stupidity  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

Back to alt.atheism | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:32 +0000
  Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 22:27 -0700
    Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-18 06:35 +0000
    Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-18 07:49 -0500
      Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-18 06:35 -0700
        Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:46 +0200
          Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:53 -0400
            Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:15 +0200
              Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:43 -0400
              Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 01:02 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:21 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 20:04 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 04:56 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 05:03 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:42 +0000
                Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:17 -0600
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:25 +1000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> - 2016-09-24 15:03 -0400
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:32 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 22:06 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:36 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:18 -0400
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 13:56 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 16:02 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-25 11:04 -0500
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:23 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 09:59 +1000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 07:35 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:27 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-27 06:10 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 12:19 -0400
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:14 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 00:39 -0400
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 14:07 +0200

csiph-web